Adobe Photoshop Online faces Lack of Interest from Pros

Advertisement (Why?)

Although the company won’t say when, Adobe is planning to offer Photoshop as an ad-supported online service. Reports suggest it may happen within six months. Adobe recently announced a partnership with online photo sharing site Photobucket that involves plans to integrate Adobe's Web-based video editing and remixing technology with Photobucket. An online version of Photoshop should appeal to the average consumer, but professional photographers – the major users of Photoshop – may not be won over so easily.

"[Photoshop] is a huge application, and the way I run it I have a lot of customization and plug-ins from third-party developers. I wouldn't be so concerned about Internet speed (bandwidth), most of the time, but performance is a huge consideration. ...Anything that slows me down costs me money, or conversely, anything that speeds up my workflow makes me money," wrote Robert Houser, a Piedmont, California-based photographer, in an e-mail.

News source: InformationWeek

#1 DirtyLarry on 02 Mar 2007 - 04:00

Although I am not a professional photographer, I am an Interactive Designer. I use Photoshop for at least 50% of my work. Not only do I agree with what Robert was quoted as saying, I will take it one step further and say I absolutely loathe this idea.

While I can see the benefit it may have for Adobe in winning over some people that may have not used it before, which I still have questions about as the people that use it regularly will always use it unless there is some sort of major catastrophe and/or change. So the majority of people who use it for production, as the quote by Robert alludes to, want all of the performance out of the program as possible.

Time is money. Always has been, always will be.

(2 replies) #2 magik on 02 Mar 2007 - 04:35

I don't see what the problem is. As long as Adobe continues to offer it's platform-based software, then this really is a non-issue.

It seems to me that Adobe is just trying to appeal to the average consumer, who otherwise would never really have the chance or be inclined to shell out the money for the full fledged software solution. Why is that so bad?

#2.1 toadeater on 02 Mar 2007 - 06:52

Quote - (magik said @ #2)

I don't see what the problem is. As long as Adobe continues to offer it's platform-based software, then this really is a non-issue.

Adobe is jumping on the Google-Microsoft online app bandwagon. A bandwagon that is going to drive off a cliff.

There's no benefit to online apps, except perhaps that they may be free. But then there are freeware or open source apps that are just as good or better. Why would someone use an online app for any serious work? I don't think they would, unless it's something like free use of a render farm.

#2.2 DomG on 02 Mar 2007 - 08:16

Quote - (toadeater said @ #2.1)

I use the Google Docs & Spreadsheets all the time. Any time someone emails me a .doc or .xls I just click the "Open as a Google spreadsheet/document" link, review and edit, save and return the file. Quick and easy, and I don't have to leave the browser. There's definitely benefit to online apps.

Although, more on topic, I don't think web-based Photoshop is that great of an idea.

#3 SniperX on 02 Mar 2007 - 07:43

For me, if I had to pick one example of an application that is just not suited for online use, it would be Adobe Photoshop. It's too large, and as other designers will attest to, it allows an array of actions, brushes, shapes and filters, which can sometimes take long enough to render locally, let alone over the web. That's even assuming, you could use these things on the web version.

I'm not a fan of online apps in the first place as I see them as the thin-edge of the wedge to us all having to "rent" our apps on a subscription basis. But that aside, this is a silly idea. Though I suppose they have to try it to find that out.

#4 Lare2 on 02 Mar 2007 - 08:27

I have the impression that this is aimed for the casual user wanting to make small photo retouches. So i understand how the pros aren't interested on this service

#5 +metal_dragen on 02 Mar 2007 - 12:41

Most of you are missing the point. As a couple have stated, this is aimed at the casual user who does not have any reason to purchase Photoshop or its ilk (Elements, etc.) and just needs it for occasional use. This is not and never will be aimed at professional photographers and artists. With technology the way it is today, there's no way this could compare feature- and performance-wise to a desktop installation of Photoshop.

Also, I read in another news item on another site that the primary motivation for this is to beat Google to the punch in the online graphics manipulation market (if there is even such a market).

#6 Magallanes on 02 Mar 2007 - 16:45

So, in others word :"OEKAKI"

#7 +Dakkaroth on 03 Mar 2007 - 01:14

This may be good in SMALL terms, but not in large. I mean, like Lare2 said, it would be great for small photo retouches. One thing I hate is completing a logo/image only to find out it's a few pixels too large or something needs to be moved a tad over. Reopening PS is a pain (only because I'm impatient), but if there were an online app that would take very little time to load, I may use it. Would probably make a shortcut in my Start menu for it too.

Hmm.. you know what? It'd be VERY cool if it could load a "Photoshop Lite" from your already installed Photoshop, only instead, taking bits and pieces rather than the whole enchilada. Something lightweight and easy to use?

I dunno.

#8 OrganicPanda on 03 Mar 2007 - 23:21

I think this is great, i love web apps, i would love to have PhotoShop and After Effects on linux, being legal would be a bonus too,

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Neowin.net